The plans would dwarf a proposal by Cape Wind Associates to build 170 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, a plan that is undergoing state and federal environmental review.

The Winergy project price tag is estimated at $700 million to $750 million, which would be financed by a multi-national corporation based in Europe. The developers said they hope to begin producing electricity in three to four years.

Winergy has not filed permit applications with regulatory agencies, but Robert Link, the firm's permit compliance officer, said Winergy officials will meet with representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers next week, at which time, Link said, Winergy will file a formal permit. The company has met informally with Army Corps officials to discuss the proposal.

Winergy officials said the company also will seek property rights for the area where wind turbines would be located. Winergy secured such a permit from the state of New York for a fish farm proposal off Long Island, Link said.

That lease gives the firm property rights to a 200-acre site off Plum Island, but Winergy officials plan to ask the Army Corps to amend the permit to allow up to six wind turbines that they plan to be operational within 14 months, Link said.

"We are the only two people who have ever received an open ocean water column lease," Link said, referring to himself and Quaranta..

Following Cape Wind's footsteps
Winergy's plans come on the heels of the Cape Wind Associates proposal for a 170-turbine wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal on Nantucket Sound north of Nantucket.
Cape Wind's project is in the early stages of an environmental review process which is expected to take more than a year to complete.

Because it is between Cape Cod, and Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, Cape Wind's idea has also attracted considerable opposition, who argue the location is inappropriate for an energy-generating project.

The Cape Wind project also has supporters, who say the environmental benefits from renewable energy outweigh the problems associated with visual concerns, the potential harm to endangered marine animals and birds, and interference with commercial fishing and navigation.

Cape Wind president James Gordon wouldn't comment yesterday on the specifics of the Winergy proposal, but he endorsed the idea.

"We need a lot of renewable energy, and I applaud those folks that want to responsibly develop off-shore wind, or any renewable energy project," he said.

"I've always said I hope our efforts and discussions on our project will inspire other people to look at indigenous energy resources," he said, noting daily reports of environmental problems linked to fossil fuel emissions.

Winergy's four sites, selected after more than two years of study, avoid many of issues now plaguing Cape Wind's plan. Link said the company deliberately selected locations that would not have visual pollution issues, and where interference with marine animals, commercial fisheries and birds would be minimal.

"I do not want to have a long talk with a right whale," he said.

Another major criteria, he said, was water depth, since technology is limited to working in 50 feet of water or less. The average depth in all four areas being explored by Winergy is 60 feet or less.

Still, opponents are concerned that the rash of off-shore proposals is not good for the Cape and islands.

"We have taken no position on (Winergy's) project, but the larger point is, we are being deluged by power plant projects on coastal waters," said Isaac Rosen, a spokesman for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an opponent of the Cape Wind proposal. "Before we industrialize the ocean, before we spread sprawl from the land to the water, we have to take a step back and do some long-term thinking."

A third company, the Texas-based Sea Energy Generation Inc., has expressed interest in a possible wind and wave energy plant about 20 miles southeast of Nantucket in an area known as South Davis Shoal.

David Spalding, business development director for Sea Energy Generation Inc., said the firm has completed its engineering report and the paperwork for the application. He said the 20-to-30-wind-turbine project, which may add wave energy production later, would produce 70 to 80 megawatts, and cost between $80 million and $100 million.

'Tattered regulatory quilt'
The sudden spurt of development potential for the waters near the Cape and islands has refueled the debate over how such activities should, or should not, be controlled by the federal government.
Currently there is no specific federal regulation that controls renewable energy projects in federal waters, out to 200 miles from shore.

There is a bill pending in Congress to give the Minerals Management Service within the Department of Interior some jurisdiction, but critics say the bill is too weak.

In comments delivered earlier this week to the federal Commission on Oceans Policy, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-MA, applauded the effort, but added, "the current version falls short of the stated objective.

"I am deeply concerned that the legislation may advance without a full assessment of its impact on the public interest in the marine environment - in effect, stitching yet another small patch to an already work and tattered regulatory quilt," Delahunt said, urging the commission to review the legislation and make recommendations to Congress "to devise a more comprehensive management regime that achieves a responsible balance," he said.

The Army Corps, which is the lead federal review agency for off-shore wind project, is taking a hard look at some of those issues.

Corps officials acknowledge that while they may issue a permit to construct something, that does not bestow any property ownership or rights for the sea bed to a potential developer.

"The permit by itself does not convey any property rights," said Karen Adams, chief of the permits and enforcement branch with Corps' New England headquarters in Concord.

"It is their (the developers') responsibility to ensure they have whatever real estate interest they need to have, but it's not clear if they need to establish a real estate interest," she said.

For off-shore oil and gas leases, there are clear regulatory requirements for leases issued by the federal government, she said, but there is nothing in the regulations about renewable energy projects.

That's the problem there's only fossil fuels and Nuclear. I'm not ready to renounce these wind generators so fast. Cape Cod is going to hell in a handbasket in other ways too so I question the impact of towers out to sea on the asthetic. The number of Trophy homes being built on cape is disgusting. Poor zoning along the byways has led to campy trashy commercial over- development. Nitrogen loading of the shellfish beds is still increasing ("oh I must have a golf green for a lawn"). It's ironic to see enviromentally active folks (like the forum) come out against a clean renewable energy source. Everyone wants to use more energy but nobody wants to pay the price. Personally I conserve energy. I keep a cold house, avoid air conditioning if I can, shut lights off, drive a 4 cylinder, and generally have the same outlook on trash and recycling. Does that make me a green hero? No. But I'm doing my part. Throughout the last 2 decades we have become more and more energy dependent. How many 2 story foyers do you see on new oversized houses now? SUVs with low MPGs? I just don't see having it both ways. Using more energy (you personally) and fighting clean energy development. Do you see the double sidedness of that position? I'm not trying to razz anyone, just point out a contradiction. I say let's wait for more data from studies on impact. IF the only thing is visual, it's a small price to pay for a cleaner world. The air quality already sucks enough in the northeast.

Opinion at this point is that Terry's right on target in principle and with comments on the Cape. With the Cape going to hell from sprawl and dot. com. trophy houses I have a hard time understanding all the fuss. Looking at net impact, windmills offshore are far less objectionable aesthetically than what's happend in the last 25 years of Cape development. If economic and technical feasability are proven (still questionable I think) and this isn't going to be some government funded science project, I'd find it hard to oppose.

You're missing the point. No one is against clean energy here, but some are against this proposal because of where the windmills would go. The generalization that an organization like the forum speaks out against clean energy is pure hogwash, it's a conscientious angling community speaking out against the abuse of our natural resources.

Why don't we put the windmills in the parking lots of the campy trash areas you mention, or for that matter on the golf green lawns? Because we are too stuck up to do it. We'd rather trash the shoals instead.

The problem is not people accepting or not accepting clean energy. The problem is that we are too stuck up to deal with our own mess. Don't take our mistakes out on the ocean. Accept the consequences of an over-successful societal structure on our own turf. The ocean does not belong to us. We pretend the land does. Let's not overstep our bounds. There is no honor in trashing our natural resources for our own gain. Clean or dirty, we need energy for our own selfish purposes.

Originally posted by juro
... The generalization that an organization like the forum speaks out against clean energy is pure hogwash, it's a conscientious angling community speaking out against the abuse of our natural resources.

Well I didn't get the sense that the opposition here supported anything but outright rejection before enough consideration was given to the larger energy consumption picture.
C'mon it's only cause you fish there. If you hung out in the White Mts. every weekend it wouldn't be an issue. Besides, who cares about whether or not a small bunch of guys with $90,000 boats off of Nantucket see some towers. I don't. Either we all start conserving or belly up to the bar and develop new technology where it works best

Quote:

Originally posted by juro
Why don't we put the windmills in the parking lots of the campy trash areas you mention, or for that matter on the golf green lawns?

Because there's no wind there.

Quote:

Originally posted by juro
The ocean does not belong to us. We pretend the land does. Let's not overstep our bounds. There is no honor in trashing our natural resources for our own gain..

Hmm...I'm reminded of a few guides who make a good dollar guiding on Monomoy.

It's ironic to see enviromentally active folks (like the forum) come out against a clean renewable energy source. Everyone wants to use more energy but nobody wants to pay the price.

I say let's wait for more data from studies on impact.

Terry, I've been wondering when you were going to chime in.

When I started these 2 threads it was for 2 reasons:
1. To make people aware of what is going on (basically a land grab)
2. And to get people to discuss the pro's and cons of a wind power plant in Nantucket sound.

While I am against it right now due to lack of concrete information, I don't consider my position hypocritical and I think that anyone could understand that.

A major concern of mine is the price tag, $500MM? I believe a majority of that is going to come out of the taxpayers pocket and I have yet to see a cost/ benefit study that supports the project or a wind project that's been installed and has proven it's value.

It's easy to use the green argument to support the project and I can see why people would support it for that reason but, is it just camoflauge for some companies that have figured out how to make more money off my tax dollars?

I think in the end, the people this is supposed to serve, the residents of Cape Cod & Massachusetts, should vote on it. Not have it pushed through by a lobbying group with the bucks to buy their vote.

Also I think it's silly to make it about the haves vs. the have nots, "$90,000 boats", the class war argument doesn't help anyone.

Last time I checked, federal resources belonged to the people. Shouldn't the people decide what happens to them?